The renewable energy directive and cereal residues

Whittaker, Carly; Borrion, Aiduan; Newnes, Linda; McManus, Marcelle

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.091

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4). In addition, Schäfer and Blanke (2012) stated that carbon sequestration into soil is excluded in ALCA, Cherubini et al (2012) assumed that the reference land use of the bioenergy is part of the fossil reference system and Whittaker et al (2014) stated that a counterfactual reference system (including the reference land use) is not required in ALCA. In the BSI (2011) and (WRI and WBCSD 2011) guidelines for product system life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting and reporting, which claim to use an ALCA approach, carbon-stock changes of land are considered under land-use changes, and land-use change taking place more than 20 years prior to the assessment is excluded.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?

Soimakallio

Cowie

Brandão³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to clarify the application of a landuse baseline in attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA) for product systems involving land use, through consideration of the fundamental purpose of ALCA. Currently, there is no clear view in the literature whether a baseline should be used when accounting for environmentally relevant physical flows related to land use. Methods An extensive search of literature was carried out using the key terms 'attributional life cycle assessment' and 'attributional LCA' in the Google Scholar web search engine. Approximately 700 publications were reviewed and summarised according to their type and scope, relevance of land use, key statements and references given for ALCA, and arguments for and against using a baseline in ALCA. Based on the literature review and supplementary literature references, a critical discussion on the use of a baseline and determination of the most appropriate land-use baseline in ALCA is provided. Results and discussion A few studies clearly argued that only absolute (observable) flows without a baseline are to be inventoried in ALCA, while the majority of the studies did not make any clear statement for or against. On the other hand, a land-use baseline was explicitly applied or proposed in a minority of the studies only, despite the fact that we classified land use as highly relevant for the majority of the studies reviewed. Furthermore, the LCA guidelines reviewed give contradictory recommendations. The most cited studies for the definition of ALCA provide general rules for selecting processes based on observable flows but do not argue that observable flows necessarily describe the environmentally relevant physical flows. Conclusions We conclude that a baseline is required to separate the studied parts of the technosphere from natural processes and to describe the impact of land use on ecosystem quality, such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity. The most coherent baseline for human-induced land-use in ALCA is natural regeneration. As the natural-regeneration baseline has typically been excluded, may vary bio-geographically and temporally, and is subject to uncertainties, case studies applying it should be performed so that implications can be studied and evaluated. This is particularly important for agricultural and forestry systems, such as food, feed, fibre, timber and biofuels. Responsible editor: Matthias FinkbeinerElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?

Soimakallio

Cowie

Brandão³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to maximize the energy utilization of the cultivated biomass, the agricultural and industrial residues (straw and oil press cake) should be used to produce heat or power [23,24], allowing a more complete exploitation of the bioenergy crop. On the other hand, the different management of crop residues is relevant from an agronomic point of view and for soil fertility issues [25,26]. In fact, crop residues are rich in essential plant nutrients and their continuous removal adversely impacts on soil properties, soil organic matter dynamics, and water as well as crop production [27].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

LCA Study of Oleaginous Bioenergy Chains in a Mediterranean Environment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports outcomes of life cycle assessments (LCAs) of three different oleaginous bioenergy chains (oilseed rape, Ethiopian mustard and cardoon) under Southern Europe conditions. Accurate data on field practices previously collected during a three-year study at two sites were used. The vegetable oil produced by oleaginous seeds was used for power generation in medium-speed diesel engines while the crop residues were used in steam power plants. For each bioenergy chain, the environmental impact related to cultivation, transportation of agricultural products and industrial conversion for power generation was evaluated by calculating cumulative energy demand, acidification potential and global warming potential. For all three bioenergy chains, the results of the LCA study show a considerable saving of primary energy (from 70 to 86 GJ· ha −1 ) and greenhouse gas emissions (from 4.1 to 5.2 t CO2· ha −1 ) in comparison to power generation from fossil fuels, although the acidification potential of these bioenergy chains may be twice that of OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2014, 7 6259 conventional power generation. In addition, the study highlights that land use changes due to the cultivation of the abovementioned crops reduce soil organic content and therefore worsen and increase greenhouse gas emissions for all three bioenergy chains. The study also demonstrates that the exploitation of crop residues for energy production greatly contributes to managing environmental impact of the three bioenergy chains.

show abstract

“…The resulting net changes compared with no residue removal (as assumed in the BAU) are in line with the consequential LCA, generally best suited for policy analysis when environmental impacts due to an alternative use of a product should be evaluated [25].…”

Section: Model Spin-up and Scenario Analysismentioning

confidence: 75%

Modelling Soil Organic Carbon Changes Under Different Maize Cropping Scenarios for Cellulosic Ethanol in Europe

Lugato

Jones

2014

Bioenerg. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utilization of crop residues in the production of second-generation biofuels has the potential to boost the bioenergy sector without affecting food commodity prices. However, policies leading to large-scale biomass removal should carefully balance the consequences, both environmental and in terms of emissions, on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks depletion. Using a recently developed simulation platform, SOC changes were estimated at European level (EU + candidate and potential candidate countries) under two scenarios of low (R30) and high (R90) maize stover removal for cellulosic ethanol production (i.e. 30 and 90 % of stover removal, respectively). Additionally, mitigation practices for SOC preservation, namely the introduction of a ryegrass cover crop (R90_C) and biodigestate return to soil (R90_B), were explored under the highest rate of stover removal. The results showed that 15.3 to 50.6 Mt year −1 of stover (dry matter) would be potentially available for ethanol production under the lower and high removal rates considered. However, largescale exploitation of maize residues will lead to a SOC depletion corresponding to 39.7-135.4 Mt CO 2 eq. by 2020 (under R30 and R90, respectively) with greater losses in the long term. In particular, every tonne of C residue converted to bioethanol was predicted to have an additional impact on SOC loss almost ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 CO 2 eq. ha −1 year −1 , considering a continuous biofuel scenario by 2050. The mitigation practices evaluated could more than halve SOC losses compared to R90, but not totally offsetting the negative soil C balance. There is a pressing need to design policies at EU level for optimum maize biofuel cultivations that will preserve the current SOC stock or even generate C credits.

show abstract

The renewable energy directive and cereal residues

Cited by 26 publications

References 47 publications

Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?

Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?

LCA Study of Oleaginous Bioenergy Chains in a Mediterranean Environment

Modelling Soil Organic Carbon Changes Under Different Maize Cropping Scenarios for Cellulosic Ethanol in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About